On Wednesday, November 5, 2025, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) formally addressed a letter to Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, expressing concerns regarding potential ethical breaches by federal judges. The letter, dated November 4, 2025, focuses on anonymous public statements made by these judges that have been critical of the Supreme Court.
The impetus for this communication stems from reports of federal judges anonymously conveying to the press a depiction of the relationship between the Supreme Court and lower courts as a “war zone.” These judges are also quoted accusing the Supreme Court of “undermining the lower courts,” among other criticisms. Chairmen Grassley and Jordan contend that such remarks undermine the judiciary’s integrity and impartiality, potentially contravening the ethical obligations expected of federal judges.
In their letter, Grassley and Jordan emphasized their roles as chairmen of the Judiciary Committees in both the Senate and the House, which grant them legislative and oversight jurisdiction over the federal courts. They voiced deep concern that these public criticisms from sitting federal judges erode public trust and confidence in the judicial system. The lawmakers stated that when judges question the legitimacy of their own branch of government, it damages faith in the institution itself.
The chairmen are specifically requesting Chief Justice Roberts to clarify whether these anonymous statements violate the Code of Conduct for United States Judges. Furthermore, they are inquiring about any plans the judicial branch may have to investigate or otherwise address this conduct.
Grassley and Jordan urged Roberts to consider the appropriateness of these public yet anonymous comments and whether they breach the ethical obligations of all federal judges. They acknowledged that the full scope of the comments and the identities of the judges involved are not yet known, but they maintained that judges should not resort to communicating with the press to undermine and denigrate the Supreme Court.
The letter makes reference to the ethical guidelines that bind federal judges, as outlined in the Code of Conduct for United States Judges. Canon 1 of the Code mandates that judges uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary. Canon 2(A) further specifies that judges should conduct themselves in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. Canon 3(A)(6) prohibits judges from making public comments on the merits of matters pending or impending in any court.
The letter also cites a 2024 case involving Chief Judge Albert Diaz of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, who resolved a judicial complaint against District Judge Michael Ponsor. The complaint stemmed from Ponsor’s publication of an essay titled, “A Federal Judge Wonders: How Could Alito Have Been So Foolish?” In that instance,
Diaz concluded that Ponsor’s statements violated Canons 1 and 2(A) by expressing personal opinions on controversial public issues and criticizing the ethics of a sitting Supreme Court justice. Diaz also determined that Ponsor’s statements violated Canon 3(A)(6), noting that the essay could reasonably be perceived as commentary on partisan issues and a call for Justice Alito’s recusal.
